Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Give a Dog a Brand-Name...

by DeAnander Mon Jul 9th, 2007 at 07:07:58 PM EST

Lazy quote diary...  Emmanuel Goldstein Edition:

via Sam Smith at ProRev, from BS Alert Jul 7 '07:

It's a curious thing that, over the past 10 - 12 days, the news from Iraq refers to the combatants there as "al-Qaida" fighters. When did that happen? Until a few days ago, the combatants in Iraq were "insurgents" or they were referred to as "Sunni" or "Shia" fighters in the Iraq Civil War. Suddenly, without evidence, without proof, without any semblance of fact, the US military command is referring to these combatants as "al-Qaida". Welcome to the latest in Iraq propaganda. . .

But what is even more notable is that the establishment press has followed right along, just as enthusiastically. I don't think the New York Times has published a story about Iraq in the last two weeks without stating that we are killing "Al Qaeda fighters," capturing "Al Qaeda leaders," and every new operation is against "Al Qaeda.". . . If your only news about Iraq came from The New York Times, you would think that the war in Iraq is now indistinguishable from the initial stage of the war in Afghanistan -- that we are there fighting against the people who hijacked those planes and flew them into our buildings: "Al Qaeda."

What is so amazing about this new rhetorical development -- not only from our military, but also from our "journalists" -- is that, for years, it was too shameless and false even for the Bush administration to use. . . After his 2004 re-election was secure, even the President acknowledged that "Al Qaeda" was the smallest component of the "enemies" we are fighting in Iraq. . . Even for the "smallest" group among those we are fighting in Iraq, the president described them not as "Al Qaeda," but as those "affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda." Claiming that our enemy in Iraq was comprised primarily or largely of "Al Qaeda" was too patently false even for the President to invoke in defense of his war.

I do not watch any US MSM -- there's no Pravda in Isvestya and no Isvestya in Pravda, and it's more than mere flesh and blood can bear -- so I can't verify the trend claimed here.  But it wouldn't surprise me at all.  Has anyone else noticed it?

Example of the new party line:
"I make no apologies," Rove said when an audience member asked how personally responsible he felt for the war. "It was the right thing to do. The world is better off with (Saddam Hussein) gone. We all thought he had weapons of mass destruction. The whole world did. He didn't. ...

"In the aftermath of the removal of the regime, al-Qaeda decided to make its stand in Iraq. And we have got to, in my opinion, fight `em and beat `em there; otherwise we are going to face them somewhere else."


BTW Mr Rove, "the whole world" didn't think Saddam and Co had WMD.  I didn't, for one.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon Jul 9th, 2007 at 07:17:54 PM EST
yup, the operation was a wonderful success, pity about the patient...

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Jul 9th, 2007 at 08:04:45 PM EST
The MSM hasn't challenged the white house in several decades - the only people that have been doing consistent criticism are the partisan media outlets. The only exceptions that come to mind are Clinton's universal health care coverage proposal in the early 90's (attacked for obvious reasons), the Monika Lewinski affair (which was a personal attack, not a policy attack) and some of the coverage of Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, which was such a stunning and total government failure that it caused a couple of journalists to briefly transform from professional robots into human beings (a shocking moment to be sure).

Anyway I think this is just another sign of Bush increasingly going for broke, which, come to think of it, is the road he's been on since his infamous "mission accomplished" speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003.

you are the media you consume.

by MillMan (millguy at gmail) on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 at 01:36:21 AM EST
Oh yes, it's al Al-Qaeda now. The more military minded bloggers have been shaking their heads in disbelief for at least a month or two over it.

Al-Qaeda is now code for THE ENEMY. I'm pretty sure that in Bushspeak we're all Al-Qaeda.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 at 02:41:27 AM EST
to Al-Qaida Tribune to make things simpler?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 at 09:39:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe it's a little like the islamist re-defining the world as all being in a state of Dar Al-Harb (land of the unbeliever). Thus excusing their ability to kill whoever they want whenever they like.

Now George has re-defined the whole world as Al-Qaeda cos you're either with us or you're against the terrorists .....uh... I mean won't get fooled again.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 at 11:26:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Must write long ranting diary pointing out that Bush, bin Laden and the like are all the same goddamn enemy: they constitute the Dar-Al-La-La  - delusional loonies living in an unreal universe inside their heads.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 at 11:34:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This week's public editor column in the NY Times is quite interesting, and relevant to this discussion.

AS domestic support for the war in Iraq continues to melt away, President Bush and the United States military in Baghdad are increasingly pointing to a single villain on the battlefield: Al Qaeda.

Bush mentioned the terrorist group 27 times in a recent speech on Iraq at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. In West Virginia on the Fourth of July, he declared, "We must defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq." The Associated Press reported last month that although some 30 groups have claimed credit for attacks on United States and Iraqi government targets, press releases from the American military focus overwhelmingly on Al Qaeda.

Why Bush and the military are emphasizing Al Qaeda to the virtual exclusion of other sources of violence in Iraq is an important story. So is the question of how well their version of events squares with the facts of a murky and rapidly changing situation on the ground.

But these are stories you haven't been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq -- and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.

And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn't even exist until after the American invasion....

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Tue Jul 10th, 2007 at 06:06:58 PM EST
was an FBI construct to describe (and thus, to call into being) the old mujaheddin networks that were related to the bombing the US embassies in kenya and tanzania, it's not surprising that the bush administration is trying to expand the amorphous definition where politically expedient. there was never as much there there as the proper noun rhetorically implied.
by wu ming on Thu Jul 12th, 2007 at 05:44:25 PM EST

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]